The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[bannedfromHandV]

12 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

It just seems like it's a very simple principle that the Premier League are making very difficult 

How is it simple?

Take the Kane ‘penalty’ - it’s divided opinions, 50% of people think it was a penalty and the other thinks it wasn’t.

I thought it was personally but then the argument against is valid, what if the on field ref thinks it’s not a penalty (even if they see replays) but the VAR ref thinks it is?

The only simple thing is thinking it’s simple. It’s far from simple.

[sne]

18 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said:

There was definitely some taking that view, the article from 2017 below takes the opposite view that removing controversy would benefit post match discussion but acknowledged that there are some (Paul Ince is referenced) who think that incorrect decisions are the main thrust of football conversation.

This article suggests that there were some against the idea of VAR because “what would we talk about down the pub?”.

Independent link

Articles and clips are proving difficult to find, but I have a memory of pundits like Paul Ince and Alan Shearer (I think) basically saying “If there are no wrong decisions, what is everyone going to talk about?”.

What a pair of bell ends 

I wonder if they also believe that the camera steals your soul when it takes a picture.

[Mic09]

4 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

How is it simple?

Take the Kane ‘penalty’ - it’s divided opinions, 50% of people think it was a penalty and the other thinks it wasn’t.

I thought it was personally but then the argument against is valid, what if the on field ref thinks it’s not a penalty (even if they see replays) but the VAR ref thinks it is?

The only simple thing is thinking it’s simple. It’s far from simple.

It should be simple.

Referee : I'm not sure what decision to make, let's have another look. VAR, can you please pop it up on the screen while I walk to the sideline?

60 seconds later

Referee: Ok, so he did dive to try and get a penalty. Here is a yellow card for him, and it's a goal kick.

Simple as, but somehow it just isn't.

[bannedfromHandV]

Just now, Mic09 said:

It should be simple.

Referee : I'm not sure what decision to make, let's have another look. VAR, can you please pop it up on the screen while I walk to the sideline?

60 seconds later

Referee: Ok, so he did dive to try and get a penalty. Here is a yellow card for him, and it's a goal kick.

Simple as, but somehow it just isn't.

Okay fine when someone dives but what about the Kane incident (or anything remotely like it)? 

You cant just pull out an example where the solution is obvious to then justify VAR as being simple to implement and operate.

So much of football is not black and white, technology will not help that as it will at times still boil down to someones opinion and individually, we will sometimes agree with that opinion and other times we won’t.

[StefanAVFC]

It should work the same way as it did in the WC.

If a decision needs a 2nd look, the VAR blokes buzz the ref, tell him to check it again pitchside himself.

At the moment, it's totally unclear what the point of it is. Aside from offside.

[Tomaszk]

23 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

It should work the same way as it did in the WC.

If a decision needs a 2nd look, the VAR blokes buzz the ref, tell him to check it again pitchside himself.

At the moment, it's totally unclear what the point of it is. Aside from offside.

Feels like Mike Dean misunderstood it the other day. Didn't see it so let it go upstairs.

If that happens, VAR has absolutely got to start from a neutral stand point and make a call. Not try and figure out if something is "enough" of a foul/no foul to change a decision.

Ref didn't see it! They didn't look and say that's not a pen! They couldn't see it, so have asked you!

[cudoz]

45 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Okay fine when someone dives but what about the Kane incident (or anything remotely like it)? 

You cant just pull out an example where the solution is obvious to then justify VAR as being simple to implement and operate.

So much of football is not black and white, technology will not help that as it will at times still boil down to someones opinion and individually, we will sometimes agree with that opinion and other times we won’t.

The referee should have set questions he can ask the VAR official to look into, for example;

1) I'm not 100% sure if that was a 'foul' - VAR can you confirm if there is any reason why I cannot/should not give a penalty/free kick?

2) I'm not sure if that foul warrants a red card - VAR can you confirm if there is reason to provide a red card?

3) I'm not sure if that hit his hand or his head and went in the goal - VAT can you confirm if there is any reason I cannot award the goal?

4) Off the ball incident not seen by the ref?  - VAR either contacts the ref to stop play, or play continues whilst a check is undertaken.

5) Marginal offside - referee asks for a check if he is unsure the linesman has made the correct decision.

Technology works for Rugby and the basic situations it can be used are pretty similar.  It should be there as an aide for the referee or to catch serious infringements.   

[Mic09]

40 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Okay fine when someone dives but what about the Kane incident (or anything remotely like it)? 

You cant just pull out an example where the solution is obvious to then justify VAR as being simple to implement and operate.

So much of football is not black and white, technology will not help that as it will at times still boil down to someones opinion and individually, we will sometimes agree with that opinion and other times we won’t.

(We are probably going in circles again with these arguments  )

Football isn't black and white. So why are you annoyed at VAR when it get's a decision wrong, if when we had no VAR, the same decision would also be wrong? So you are not annoyed at VAR, but at the fact that football isn't black and white?

It should be as simple as in my example:
 

Quote

Referee : I'm not sure what decision to make, let's have another look. VAR, can you please pop it up on the screen while I walk to the sideline?

60 seconds later

Referee: Ok, so he did dive to try and get a penalty. Here is a yellow card for him, and it's a goal kick.

We can critique the implementation but the principle should help referees make easier decisions. Not 100% accurate. Easier.

And what's wrong with that?

[villa4europe]

that's what I disagree with, the ref shouldn't need to stop the game and ask, just play on as per the pitch refs decisions until the VAR ref says otherwise

stopping the game to ask if he got something right only to be told a minute later yes you did is a stupid stoppage that no one wants

just like goal line, play on until the buzzer goes off

[tomav84]

3 hours ago, sne said:

So they rather get it wrong even with VAR then check the monitors and get it right. Because time.

Not sure halfassing it is the way to go if they're going to use it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7400363/Referees-ordered-not-check-VAR-screens-matches-difficult-introduction-Premier-League.html

Yeah I know, the Mail...

so they use it sparingly, people complain that not every single decision is correct. we all know what everyone would moan about if they checked monitors on pitchside etc.

personally i think it's been a resounding success in the prem so far. the object is to eliminate the absolute howlers....not spend 3-4 minutes deliberating over possible penalties that really could go either way. you're still going to get decisions that are open for debate such as the one on mcginn vs spurs and the one on the everton player last friday.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, cudoz said:

The referee should have set questions he can ask the VAR official to look into, for example;

1) I'm not 100% sure if that was a 'foul' - VAR can you confirm if there is any reason why I cannot/should not give a penalty/free kick?

2) I'm not sure if that foul warrants a red card - VAR can you confirm if there is reason to provide a red card?

3) I'm not sure if that hit his hand or his head and went in the goal - VAT can you confirm if there is any reason I cannot award the goal?

4) Off the ball incident not seen by the ref?  - VAR either contacts the ref to stop play, or play continues whilst a check is undertaken.

5) Marginal offside - referee asks for a check if he is unsure the linesman has made the correct decision.

Technology works for Rugby and the basic situations it can be used are pretty similar.  It should be there as an aide for the referee or to catch serious infringements.   

Indeed it does work for rugby but rugby is far less about small margins and opinions, they don't have to worry about was it a foul or not which is what we're talking about here.

The only way you can foul someone in rugby is a high tackle and that tends to be a fairly unanimous view.

They don't have to watch a reply 4 or 5 times from different angles to work out if a player went to ground due to excessive contact.

[bannedfromHandV]

1 hour ago, Mic09 said:

(We are probably going in circles again with these arguments  )

Football isn't black and white. So why are you annoyed at VAR when it get's a decision wrong, if when we had no VAR, the same decision would also be wrong? So you are not annoyed at VAR, but at the fact that football isn't black and white?

It should be as simple as in my example:
 

We can critique the implementation but the principle should help referees make easier decisions. Not 100% accurate. Easier.

And what's wrong with that?

Thanks for attempting to summarize my thought process but it fell short.

I'm annoyed with the introduction of VAR as it's trying to solve a problem that by and large didn't need solving and despite all the technology we're still in the same situation as we were previously where it depends on the viewpoint of the given official as to whether or not it's a foul.

What's wrong with that is that the integrity of the sport is being risked for what I (and others) see as very little gain, if any.

[Mic09]

3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Thanks for attempting to summarize my thought process but it fell short.

I'm annoyed with the introduction of VAR as it's trying to solve a problem that by and large didn't need solving and despite all the technology we're still in the same situation as we were previously where it depends on the viewpoint of the given official as to whether or not it's a foul.

What's wrong with that is that the integrity of the sport is being risked for what I (and others) see as very little gain, if any.

I think VAR was introduced to get rid of Henry style handballs. Will it succeed in that regard? Most likely yes.

Did Henry style handballs not need solving in your opinion with a simple video replay?

[bannedfromHandV]

11 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I think VAR was introduced to get rid of Henry style handballs. Will it succeed in that regard? Most likely yes.

Did Henry style handballs not need solving in your opinion with a simple video replay?

Yes, Henry style handballs are not great.

You win, pointless arguing with you when you just jump to the first extreme that crosses your mind to justify all the wasted time and energy spent reviewing situations that come down to matter of opinion.

You and VAR seem a match made in heaven.

[Mic09]

6 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Yes, Henry style handballs are not great.

You win, pointless arguing with you when you just jump to the first extreme that crosses your mind to justify all the wasted time and energy spent reviewing situations that come down to matter of opinion.

You and VAR seem a match made in heaven.

Mate, there is no need to aggression here. Can we not have a normal debate?

All I said it should be simple and it should take no more than 60 seconds for the referee to make a better informed decision. 

I agreed that this is not happening right now.

Would you not agree that a system where a referee can make a better decision in a game and make it fairer with no more than 60 seconds wasted is a good solution?

[bannedfromHandV]

35 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Mate, there is no need to aggression here. Can we not have a normal debate?

All I said it should be simple and it should take no more than 60 seconds for the referee to make a better informed decision. 

I agreed that this is not happening right now.

Would you not agree that a system where a referee can make a better decision in a game and make it fairer with no more than 60 seconds wasted is a good solution?

Yes, Utopia would be great.

But in the real world, that doesn't happen.

[Mic09]

36 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Yes, Utopia would be great.

But in the real world, that doesn't happen.

No it doesn't happen. Hence I said 'It should happen, but it doesn't'. 

I don't think my example of a referee asking for a replay when they are unsure and running to sidelines while the replay is loaded (all of which should last 60 seconds) OR playing a replay on the screen in the stadium to speed up the process even more is utopia.

I actually think it's a rather basic, non complicated idea. And yes, some wrong decision will still be made.

Is this too much ground to give? 
 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Mic09

[Vive_La_Villa]

8 hours ago, Mic09 said:

Mate, there is no need to aggression here. Can we not have a normal debate?

All I said it should be simple and it should take no more than 60 seconds for the referee to make a better informed decision. 

I agreed that this is not happening right now.

Would you not agree that a system where a referee can make a better decision in a game and make it fairer with no more than 60 seconds wasted is a good solution?

I think because they are trying to make the decision quickly they are getting decisions wrong. Ref isn’t giving it in case it’s over turned. VAR aren’t giving it because they don’t want to undermine the ref. 

If VAR isn’t sure tell the ref to go and have a look on the screen. Yes it takes longer but at least they have more chance of getting it right.  

It cost Spurs a point and allowed Newcastle to gain 2. It was such a blatant penalty. This could have such a big impact end of the season for so many teams. Its the kind of decision the ref should be checking again 

 

[Vive_La_Villa]

10 hours ago, tomav84 said:

personally i think it's been a resounding success

I was happy to see VAR but I can’t see where it’s been a success so far. The 2 handballs are farcical but I accept that’s more about the new rule than the use of VAR. 

But it’s also missed 2 blatant penalties.

I can’t think of an incorrect decision that it’s overturned.   Maybe the offside which again was millimetres and never would have been debated had the goal been given. 

[tomav84]

9 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think because they are trying to make the decision quickly they are getting decisions wrong. Ref isn’t giving it in case it’s over turned. VAR aren’t giving it because they don’t want to undermine the ref. 

If VAR isn’t sure tell the ref to go and have a look on the screen. Yes it takes longer but at least they have more chance of getting it right.  

It cost Spurs a point and allowed Newcastle to gain 2. It was such a blatant penalty. This could have such a big impact end of the season for so many teams. Its the kind of decision the ref should be checking again 

 

just watched it again...i strongly disagree. the newcastle lad fell over, and kane quite deliberately leaned in to him as he was falling in order to look for the pen. the fact that kane ended up 2 yards to the LEFT of the ball from the direction he was running is somewhat of a back up to my argument. he was looking for it.

one of the biggest arguments against VAR was disrupting the flow of play. i guarantee if they were looking at the screen each time, people would soon get pissed off with it. for now it seems like it's just ticking along in the background, which for me is much better

8 hours ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

But it’s also missed 2 blatant penalties.

which was the 2nd pen you're referring to?